U.S. Campaign in Iraq and Syria: Another Vietnam?

MAJ Montgomery Granger — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:20:36 -0400

He inferred it. U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) compared our floundering in the Middle East to the conflict that took years off of his life as a U.S. Navy pilot and prisoner of war.

He said, in a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Ash Carter, “My conversations with military commanders both on the ground and in the Pentagon have led me to the disturbing, yet unavoidable conclusion that they have been reduced from considering what it will take to win to what they will be allowed to do by this administration.” He said that the U.S. fight against Islamic State militants risks becoming “another slow, grinding failure” like the Vietnam War.

Strategically speaking, Sen. McCain is right. Just like politics prevented the mining of Haiphong Harbor, the main gateway of international (read: Chinese) supply to the North Vietnamese, politics prevents our military from doing its job in Iraq and Syria.

Further examination of our current fight reveals disturbing patterns of incompetence, or recalcitrance.

"If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail." That quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but was used for effect by Gen. George S. Patton, who is most likely rolling over in his grave regarding our failing Middle East campaign. Patton was famous for saying, “A good plan, executed violently today, is better than the perfect plan next week.”

Part of that rationale is that the longer you wait, the longer your enemy has to prepare, or move, or do something else unpredicted. It seems our plans for success in the Middle East and in combating global terror are nonexistent, myopic or just plain bad.

Recently officials at the Pentagon were talking about augmenting Special Forces troops already in Syria. How many? No one is saying. But this much is certain, more Special Forces doesn’t mean destroying the enemy and then holding ground. At best it means harassment, and at worst it means more high value targets for the enemy.

The "no boots on the ground" White House philosophy along with drones, bombs and Special Forces does not a winning wartime strategy make.

As chefs from India may lament when faced with the French culinary couture of, "a pinch here, and a pinch there," say, "If you're going to spice the food, PUT IT IN!"

If you're going to win the war, PUT IT IN.

And the "IT" here is our effort. Effort beats talent when talent doesn't work hard, and the Islamists are working hard while we keep our starting team on the bench.

PUT IT IN means if you want to win then let loose the dogs of war and send in the starting team, the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and the United States Marine Corps.

I have heard pundits claim, "You can’t beat ISIS by sending in tens of thousands of troops." The hell you can’t!

If you hold all the ground and keep it, your enemy cannot exist in any meaningful way. Those who are left will find something else to do.

Back to the planning part. Backwards planning is the hallmark of good military thinking. The first question is always about the last thing. What is the objective? What is the end state? And then, how do we get there from here?

If the end game is peace in the Middle East, then we must be willing to stay in the Middle East. In WWII, we defeated our enemies, liberated oppressed citizens and then stayed. We had the Marshall Plan to help rebuild the infrastructure and subsidize the defense of these former enemies.

Germany, Japan and Italy, now among the most peaceful and prosperous countries on earth, are that way not in spite of the United States, but because of the United States. We are still there, over 70 years after the end of WWII. Not as conquerors, but as liberators, friends and allies.

What these countries didn’t spend on self-defense after WWII because of our presence they spent on infrastructure and industry. Now, looking at the Middle East we may have no choice but to re-engage the enemy on a large scale, but to what end?

Why isn't the administration and why aren't the mainstream media talking about our goals? What do we hope to achieve and how?

It's not about how many troops - always a favorite liberal wrongheaded distraction - it's about winning the war and then securing the peace. It is also not about abandoning the battle like President Obama did in Iraq in late 2011, when he withdrew all U.S. forces without making any effort to obtain or negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement.

We need to annihilate the Islamic State and make global Islamist terrorism unprofitable to those who wish to perpetrate it. And the sooner the West accepts that Islam is a political movement, a theocracy, masquerading as a religion, the sooner we can get on with the dirty job of eliminating it once and for all. In the meantime, let us stop pussyfooting around in Iraq and Syria and kill the damn bastards.

After all, the U.S. military operation in Iraq and Syria is called “Inherent Resolve.” Literally, this means “permanent solution”; permanent solution to what exactly, and how?

The symbolism on the new Operation Inherent Resolve service medal evokes the Crusades, with its armored hand holding an erect dagger (skewering a scorpion by the way) could be construed as representing religious zealotry.

It is said that the Islamic State often uses the Crusades to inform its followers of the motivations of its enemies, non-Muslims. I say, let them!

The Crusades were actually the Christian answer to centuries of Islamist expansion, and now enough is enough.

There should be no more Mr. Nice Guy. No more appeasement. No more indecision or politically correct thinking. No more innocent lives lost.

Inherent Resolve? Are they just words, or is somebody actually going to DO something about it in our lifetimes?

Unless we make a full and honest effort to defeat the forces of terror we risk repeating history in the worst way.

When politics and military goals are different (Vietnam), we fail. When they are the same (WWII), we win.

When will we demand victory of our representatives in Congress and of the President?

--
I am the author of "Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior," and three times mobilized U.S. Army Reserve Major (Retired). See more of my work on the SBPRA website under: montgomeryjgranger

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Apr 27 at 2016 1:08 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:08:33 -0400

If politicians kept their noses out of what needs to be done, it would get done right.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Apr 27 at 2016 2:13 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:13:30 -0400

Although I am not a big fan of McCain in this case he is right.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Apr 27 at 2016 2:13 PM

SFC Marcus Belt — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:13:42 -0400

And how exactly does one use kinetic military power to defeat an ideology? Someone is going to use Nazism as an example, but there are key differences. First, the technology of that era didn't allow Nazi Germany to recruit Nazis in our own backyards, certainly not on the scale that violent extremist organizations can. Secondly, the real issue is the ongoverned areas of the Middle East, East Africa and the South Philippines. Fix those and you've fixed the problem.

A comprehensive military defeat of Da'esh is certainly attainable. Kind of. If you think of creating Al Qaeda 3.0 as something worth doing. Because that's what will happen in the power vacuum created by a sudden and complete kinetic defeat of ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh.

The most significant point that I'd like to make is this: we ARE already winning. Slowly.

But the plan we are executing (some of us more directly than others) sets conditions to NOT have to do this again in the near future. And it's not President Obama's plan, it's GEN Nagata's, and he's a warrior's warrior.

Does anyone think the nation can afford another 15 years of what we just went through?

R.E.L.A.X

Response by SGT Philip Roncari made Apr 27 at 2016 2:15 PM

SGT Philip Roncari — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:15:23 -0400

I feel this conflict is like no other in recent history,this is religious war not a war fought against communism,fascism,or a war over resources,land or national identity.a purely military solution is I am afraid a pie in the sky wish.I truly am afraid our grandchildren will be facing this mess God help us all

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2016 2:37 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:37:26 -0400

I have always admired Patton, Stilwell, Hal Moore, Schwartzkoph, Don Sharer and McCrystal. Write it up and turn them loose.

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Apr 27 at 2016 2:51 PM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:51:56 -0400

There is no war to fight over there, time to cut ties and leave.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2016 3:23 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:23:03 -0400

its time that the millitary and govt acknowoledge that iraq was a big mistake if saddam was still in power then isis wont be a problem

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Apr 27 at 2016 6:27 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 18:27:15 -0400

"... they have been reduced from considering what it will take to win to what they will be allowed to do by this administration ..."

That about sums it up. The Democrats gave us the first defeat in our country's history in Viet Nam by micro-managing the military and cutting off essential funding and they have been trying (successfully) to do the same thing in the GWOT from the beginning.

Elections have consequences.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Apr 27 at 2016 7:22 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:22:54 -0400

In Iraq we smashed society, military, and government. When our forces got to Baghdad we were looking at each other like what's next. The General Patreuses' COIN came out and we rebuilt society, the government, and military with the intent of installing democracy. Democracy meant victory! Our lack of understanding of the country and lack of decent human terrain created conditions for a second war. The government discriminated against the Sunnis, society culminated in Sunnis vs. Shia, and rebuilding the military was virtually impossible. The passion of the people is generally against ISIS but the government is barely channeling the passion. I hope this makes sense.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2016 11:29 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:29:33 -0400

A real American Commander

Response by SFC Alfred Galloway made Jul 1 at 2016 1:22 PM

SFC Alfred Galloway — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 13:22:33 -0400

Without clear cut goals, objectives and a willingness to see them through will become another Vietnam

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Jan 19 at 2020 11:50 AM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:50:36 -0500

Their have been wars in the middle east since recorded history. I doubt if it will ever stop. I think John McCain has spoken the truth. The citizens of the united states haven't approved of a war since WWII. If the conditions for the Vietnam war were in place now, we would be out of the middle east except for protecting Israel. Vietnam stopped the Draft and the casualty rate was high. If we had even one of those conditions today things would be different. Less than 1% of the population know or have anyone in the military. The casualty rate is low. It's an all volunteer force. It is not a political issue that people care about. We are trying to do what the British tried in the 19th century. After WWI they left the middle east. Enter the US. mainly because of oil and Israel. After WWII we became the worlds police force like it or not. Semper Fi.